(•Vvc-s.  /i  ft  - 


.  v- -  --  4®  **  " 

1  ^5  i. 

___  v  t*  'V  a  / 

Modernism  and  the  Religious 
Crisis  in  Italy. 


Reprinted  from  The  Churchman ,, July  22 ,  ign. 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE 

AMERICAN  WALDENSIAN  AID  SOCIETY, 
213  West  76th  Street, 

New  York  City. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Columbia  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/modernismreligioOOIuzz 


Modernism  and  the  Religious 
Crisis  in  Italy. 

By  GIOVANNI  LUZZI,  D.  D., 
Professor  in  the  Waldensian  Seminary,  Florence. 


THESE  MODERNISTS,  WHO  ARE  THEY? 

I  do  not  know  if  at  the  present  time  there 
can  be  a  subject  more  interesting  and  more 
important  than  that  of  Modernism  and  the 
religious  crisis  in  Italy ;  and  I  am  sure  our 
brethren  and  our  friends  beyond  the  ocean 
will  be  glad  to  get  some  information  about 
it,  coming  directly  from  the  field  where  the 
conflict  is  raging,  and  from  one  who  is  living 
in  immediate  contact  with  the  insurgents. 

War  has  been  declared.  On  one  side  stands 
the  Vatican,  with  its  traditions,  with  its  fossi¬ 
lized  formulas  and  institutions,  with  its  intol¬ 
erance,  with  its  political  preoccupations  ;  on 
the  other  side  stand  the  whole,  or  nearly  the 
whole,  of  the  young  clergy,  the  seminaries 
which  are  preparing  the  clergy  of  the  future, 
and  the  laity,  which  begins  to  awaken  from  its 
religious  torpor  ;  and  on  this  side,  and  every¬ 
where  and  in  everyone,  is  a  new  thirst  for 
spirituality,  a  feeling  of  weariness  of  the  old 
traditions,  a  longing  for  formulas  and  insti¬ 
tutions  vivified  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  an  up 
to  the  present,  unfelt  desire  for  larger  and 
deeper  Christian  love,  an  ardent  aspiration 
to  see  their  great  and  beloved  Church  re¬ 
formed,  renewed,  and  brought  back  from 
death  unto  life.  All  those  who  stand  in  such 
opposition  to  the  Vatican  are  called  Modern¬ 
ists.  What  is  their  ideal  ?  4  4  The  ideal  which 
we  have  in  view,”  they  say  themselves  in 
their  44  Programme,”  4 4  is  that  of  a  Church 


once  more  the  spiritual  director  of  souls  in 
their  laborious  pilgrimage  toward  the  distant 
goal  to  which  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  is  a 
spirit  of  brotherhood  and  peace,  is  leading 
them  ;  and  our  efforts  are  directed  to  instil 
into  minds  this  new  consciousness  of  the 
everlasting  destinies  of  Catholicism  in  the 
world.”  This  Church  is,  for  them,  “the 
Church  of  their  fathers,  ”  “  which,  how  - 
ever,”  says  Romolo  Murri  in  his  book,  “ La 
Politica  Liberate  e  la  Democrazia,"  “  must 
be  internally  reinvigorated,  and  externally 
reduced  to  right  proportions ;  all  extraneous 
and  hurtful  elements  must  be  removed  from 
our  religious  profession,  and  religion  must 
be  presented  and  made  to  live  as  the  religion 
of  the  spirit  and  of  liberty  ;  in  short,  cler¬ 
icalism  must  be  fought  against  for  the  benefit 
of  religion,  which  must,  above  all,  be  de¬ 
tached  from  the  survival  of  the  political  and 
parasitical  elements,  which  are  so  multi¬ 
form  and  tenacious.”  To  the  episcopal  form 
of  the  *  ‘  Church  of  their  fathers  ’  ’  the 
Modernists  tenaciously  hold,  for  historical 
reasons,  from  inherited  tendencies,  and  from 
racial  inclination. 

Now,  I  am  convinced  that  not  all  Mod¬ 
ernists  have  realized  what  transformation 
Romanism  would  have  to  undergo  to  become 
a  truly  Christian  Church.  I  am  more  than 
persuaded  that  experience  has  much  to  teach 
them,  which  at  present  they  do  not  suspect 
they  need  to  learn.  But,  granted  that  in 
the  Providence  of  God  their  dream  should 
become  a  historical  fact,  I  cannot  conceive 
what  harm  there  would  be  in  having,  in  our 
Latin  countries,  a  strong  Episcopal  Christian 
Church,  which,  accentuating  what  is  essen¬ 
tial  with  the  same  energy  with  which,  in  the 
past,  it  accentuated  what  is  accessory,  should 
work  in  full  communion  of  spirit  and  love 


4 


alongside  our  Presbyterian,  Methodist  and 
Congregational  Churches,  for  the  glory  of 
Christ  and  the  triumph  of  His  Kingdom. 
“We  are  not  rebels,”  they  say  in  an  “Open 
Letter  to  Pius  X,”  “but  sincere  Catholics; 
and,  as  such,  we  desire  to  stand  up  for  the 
salvation  of  Christianity.  ’  ’  And  in  the 
pamphlet,  “A  Crisis  of  Souls  in  Catho¬ 
licism,”  after  having  spoken  of  the  reforms 
they  dream  of,  they  conclude  by  saying : 
“These  changes  will  come  by  the  inexor¬ 
able  force  of  things ;  and  even  if  men  are 
able  but  slowly  to  accustom  themselves  to 
them,  still  these  changes  will  be  so  vast  and 
so  deep  as  to  astonish,  if  they  live  some  ten 
years  more  or  so,  many  of  those  timid  fol¬ 
lowers  who  now  do  their  best  to  retard 
Catholicism  in  its  forward  march.” 

WHAT  SHADE  OUR  ATTITUDE  BE? 

Now,  our  attitude  toward  this  modern 
tendency  in  Roman  Catholicism  cannot  be 
but  one  :  We  must  seek  to  understand  these 
Modernists  ;  we  must  .sympathize  with  them , 
without  forcing  them  to  come  out  from  the 
Church  of  Rome.  Those  who  are  born  in 
Protestant  lands  and  of  Protestant  parents 
can  have  but  little  idea  of  the  point  of  view 
of  those  whose  ancestral  religion  is  Roman 
Catholicism,  or  of  the  working  of  a  con¬ 
science  which  has  been  formed  and  educated 
in  a  Roman  Catholic  atmosphere.  They  who 
live  in  Christ  and  have  Christ  living  in  them 
cannot  always  understand  the  tenacity  with 
which  those  priests,  who  have  not  entirely 
learned  Christ,  cling  to  the  principle  of  an 
external  authority,  as  a  drowning  man  clings 
to  the  plank  which  supports  him.  Per¬ 
haps  we  take  too  little  into  account  the 
benefits  that  the  Papacy  rendered  to  human¬ 
ity  in  her  darkest  and  most  critical  days, 


5 


and  therefore  do  not  appreciate  enough  how 
fascinating  for  those  priests  is  the  dream  of 
seeing,  some  time  or  other,  the  historic 
organization  of  Romanism  reconciled  with 
the  spirituality  of  primitive  Christianity. 
In  my  opinion  it  is  a  grave  error  to  urge 
the  Modernist  to  leave  the  Church  of  Rome. 
It  is  wise  to  advise  them  to  remain,  as  long 
as  their  conscience  allows  them  to  do  so ; 
wise  to  exhort  them  to  persevere  in  their 
protests,  to  shake  the  foundations  of  the 
already  tottering  Colossus,  to  complete  the 
ruin  of  that  tyrannical  authority  which  for  so 
many  centuries  has  dominated  the  con¬ 
sciences  of  the  clergy  and  the  laity.  They 
must  remain  and  complete  with  all  their 
strength,  from  within,  that  work  of  destruc¬ 
tion  and  renovation  which  we  Protestants 
have  for  long  sought  to  accomplish  from 
without. 

Truly,  in  the  whole  history  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  there  has  never  been  a  period  to 
be  compared  with  the  present  one.  History 
records  in  every  period  sporadic  cases  of 
rebellion,  easily  hushed  up  by  violence  ;  but 
now  the  rebellion  is  growing  fast,  is  gain¬ 
ing  the  enthusiasm  of  the  best,  is  beginning 
to  rouse  the  interest  of  the  laity.  When 
the  old  generation  of  the  clergy  still  up¬ 
holding  the  Curia  has  passed  away  and  the 
field  is  in  the  hands  of  the  insurgents, 
when  the  minority  of  to-day  will  to-morrow 
have  become  majority,  what  then  is  to 
become  of  the  Vatican  ?  It  will  have  either 
to  Christianize  itself  or  die. 

I  know  there  are  not  a  few  who  think  that 
all  this  is  nothing  but  a  huge  exaggeration ; 
that  all  this  movement  may  be  summed  up 
in  the  efforts  of  a  handful  of  priests  who, 
yielding  to  the  temptations  of  higher  criti¬ 
cism,  have  left  the  Church  and  abandoned 


6 


the  faith.  It  is  a  gross  mistake.  lyisten  to 
this  statement,  made  by  a  priest  in  high 
position  in  the  Church  :  ‘  ‘  Do  not  make  any 
mistake ;  in  spite  of  all  the  means  taken 
to  check  it,  Modernism  is  more  alive  than 
ever.  The  Vatican  is  in  possession  of  hun¬ 
dreds  of  documents  proving  that  a  strong 
Modernist  organization  has  been  formed 
within  the  Church  ;  that  in  order  to  foster 
the  cause  of  Modernism  a  kind  of  freema¬ 
sonry  has  been  found  in  the  Church.  The 
Vatican  has  found  out  that  between  several 
churches  and  even  between  several  semi¬ 
naries  a  secret  correspondence  is  kept  up 
with  a  view  to  spreading  Modernism.” 

No  wonder,  then,  if  the  Pope  has  felt  the 
necessity  of  issuing  a  decisive, 

A  CRUSHING  “MOTU  PROPRIO.” 

It  crashed  like  a  thunderbolt  on  Sept.  8,  of 
last  year.  The  “  Osservatore  Romano ,” 
the  official  paper  of  the  Vatican,  published 
it  first ;  all  the  Italian  press  reported  it,  and 
in  a  flash  the  startling  document  in  its 
general  lines  was  spread  all  over  the  country. 
It  was  as  clear  as  daylight  that  by  his  ‘  ‘  Motu 
proprio  ’  ’  the  Pope  had  meant  to  give  the 
last  blow  to  Modernism. 

What  is  the  difference  between  an  ‘  ‘  En- 
cyclical  ”  and  a  “ Motu  proprio  The 
difference  between  the  two  documents  is  this  : 
The  “  Encyclical  ”  deals  with  doctrine  ;  the 
“ Motu  proprio  ”  deals  only  with  practical 
and  disciplinary  matters.  The  contents  of 
the  papal  document  may  be  summed  up  as 
follows :  After  an  exordium  in  which  the 
Pope  states  that  the  Modernist  Movement 
has  taken  in  the  Church  the  secret  form  of  a 
propaganda  and  of  a  secret  association,  the 
“ Motu  proprio ,  ”  quotes  the  part  of  the  En¬ 
cyclical  ‘  ‘ Pascendi ,  ’  ’  which  refers  to  theolog- 


7 


ical  studies  in  the  seminaries,  choice  of 
principals  and  professors  in  seminaries  and 
universities,  conferring  of  degress,  vigilance 
and  censure  against  Modernist  literature, 
conventions  of  priests,  etc.  This,  the  first 
part  of  the  document.  The  second  part 
follows,  which  contains  new  provisions 
against  Modernism  ;  that  is  to  say  : 

(1)  A  “Memorandum”  to  the  bishops 
to  impress  on  them  the  necessity  of  their 
taking  the  greatest  care  in  preparing  a 
young  clergy  well  equipped  to  fight  against 
error  ( error  is  here  synonymous  with 
Modernism) .  In  order  to  prevent  the  young 
divinity  students  from  being  distracted  by 
other  preoccupations,  the  “  Motu  proprio''' 
forbids  them  altogether  the  reading  of  all 
newspapers  and  periodicals,  even  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  ones,  including  those  known 
as  being  strictly  orthodox. 

(2)  The  injunction  to  a  whole  class  of 
people  to  take  an  oath  of  orthodoxy  and 
loyalty  to  the  true  doctrine  and  Roman 
Catholic  discipline.  The  oath  to  be  taken 
by  all  professors  at  the  beginning  of  their 
yearly  courses ;  by  clerics  of  an  inferior 
order  before  their  promotion  to  a  higher 
order  ;  by  all  new  confessors,  by  all  parish 
priests,  canons,  beneficed  clergymen  before 
coming  into  possession  of  their  benefices, 
and  by  all  officials  in  ecclesiastical  courts. 

(3)  The  formula  of  the  oath,  by  which  a 
declaration  is  made  to  accept  and  profess  all 
the  articles  of  belief  defined  by  the  infallable 
Church,  concerning :  (a)  God  and  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  God  ;  ( b )  Revelation  made  evident 
through  miracles  and  prophecy ;  (c)  The 
Church  and  the  Roman  hierarchy,  with 
Peter  as  its  fundamental  rock  ;  ( d )  The 
Christian  doctrine  as  handed  down  by  the 


8 


apostles  and  as  interpreted  by  the  Fathers  ; 
(e)  Faith,  according  to  the  orthodox  defini¬ 
tion  (an  adherence  of  the  intellect  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church).  Besides  all  this, 
the  formula  includes  a  complete  approval  of 
everything  said  in  the  Fncyclical  Pascendi , 
in  the  decree  Lamentabili ,  called  the 
Syllabus  of  Pius  X,  and  a  complete  rejec¬ 
tion  of  all  new  Modernist  theories,  which 
are  with  great  care  specified  and  with  great 
force  condemned  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
document. 

WAS  IT  A  SUCCESS  OR  A  FAILURE  ? 

It  was  a  failure — an  utter  failure.  I  shall 
not  recall  to  you  the  bold  declarations  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  professors  at  Munster,  nor 
the  strong  letter  of  the  French  Modernist 
priests  to  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of 
France,  nor  the  way  in  which  the  Russian 
censure  called  the  Vatican  to  order ;  I  wish 
here  to  call  your  attention  to  another  series 
of  facts. 

The  first  impression  of  the  ‘  ‘  Motu 
proprio  ’  ’  on  our  Italian  clergy  was  far 
from  being  what  the  Pope  had  expected  it 
to  be.  Our  clergy  knew  already  too  well 
the  ways  of  the  Curia.  The  seminary  at 
Perugia,  where,  under  the  intelligent  prin- 
cipalship  of  the  learned  Monsignor  Umberto 
Fracassini,  exegetical  studies  were  carefully 
and  scientifically  cultivated,  had  been 
already  suppressed  ;  Bishop  Gentili,  sus¬ 
pected  to  be  a  protector  of  Monsignor 
Fracassini,  had  been  deposed  ;  from  two 
great  preachers,  Padre  Gazzola,  of  Milan, 
and  Padre  Semeria,  of  Genoa,  the  license  to 
preach  had  been  withdrawn ;  several  other 
priests  and  friars  of  note,  thought  to  be 
dangerous,  had  been  sent  far  away  to 
Fngland  or  to  South  America  ;  what  else 


9 


was  there,  therefore,  to  be  expected,  if  not 
new  and  terrible  suppressive  measures  ? 

Some  members  of  the  clergy,  when  or¬ 
dered  to  take  the  oath,  refused  energetically, 
and  left  the  Church.  Others  grouped  them¬ 
selves  together,  and,  following  the  example 
of  their  fellow  priests  of  France,  before 
taking  the  oath,  wrote  an  anonymous  letter 
to  their  bishops  and  archbishops,  in  which, 
after  having  expressed  their  motives  for 
their  taking  such  a  tremendous  step  as 
writing  this  letter,  they  concluded  by 
saying :  ‘  ‘  Before  undergoing  this  act  of 

violence,  we  protest  in  the  sight  of  God,  of 
the  Church  and  of  your  Lordship,  that  such 
an  oath  does  not  in  any  way  pledge  our 
conscience,  nor  does  it  in  any  way  modify 
our  ideas.  We  shall  remain  after,  what  we 
were  before  the  oath.”  The  largest  number 
of  those  bound  to  take  the  oath  took  it 
against  their  conscience ;  and  the  Curia 
seemed  to  triumph. 

All  those  who  took  the  oath  in  that  spirit 
ought  to  have  stood  up  as  one  man  ;  they 
ought  to  have  been  led  by  their  bishops 
against  those  who  had  ordered  that,  with 
their  hand  on  the  Gospel ;  they  should  de¬ 
liberately  dishonor  the  Gospel.  But  if  such 
behavior  has  no  justification,  has  it  at  least 
some  extenuation  ?  Let  us  hear  the  answer 
of  an  ex-priest  who,  when  a  short  time  be¬ 
fore  the  injunction  of  the  oath  he  left  the 
Church,  had  nothing  else  in  this  world  ex¬ 
cept  $7 ,  which  a  poor  woman  had  given  him 
in  payment  of  twenty  masses,  and  which 
the  good  soul  made  a  present  of  to  him, 
when  he  offered  to  return  them  to  her. 
‘  ‘  With  nothing  else  than  these  few  dollars 
did  I  leave  the  Church  and  face  the  uncer¬ 
tainty  of  my  future.  But  how  many  priests 
and  friars  are  there  from  whom  such  an  act 


10 


of  courage  might  be  expected  ?  To  speak  of 
martyrdom  when  there  is  no  peril  impend¬ 
ing,  and  to  speak  of  hunger  when  sitting  at 
a  well-spread  table,  are  easy  things  to  do  ; 
but  when  the  wolf  is  already  at  the  door  of 
the  poor  parish  priest,  who  has  nothing  else 
on  earth  but  the  scanty  income  of  a  daily 
meagre  mass  to  count  upon,  who  has  besides 
himself  perhaps  an  old  father  and  an  old 
mother  to  support,  who  knows  that  if  he 
leaves  the  Church  all  ways  will  be  barred 
against  him  and  not  a  soul  will  he  find  to 
give  him  a  job,  the  question  becomes  very 
serious  indeed  ;  and  if  the  Curia  takes  him 
by  the  throat,  and  under  those  circumstances 
forces  him  to  take  an  oath  which  is  against 
his  conscience,  the  priest  will  probably  com¬ 
mit  an  immoral  act,  but  the  Curia  will  have 
killed  a  man.”  No,  the  ex-priest  is  wrong; 
the  Curia  will  not  have  killed  a  man  ;  it  will 
have  made  and  secured  for  itself  an  enemy 
who,  on  the  great  day  of  reckoning,  will 
fight  with  the  fury  of  one  who  has  been 
wounded  in  what  he  held  most  dear  and 
sacred. 

And  let  us  not  forget  the  most  important 
thing.  Those  who  have  taken  the  oath  are 
not  the  whole  army  ;  behind  them  is  a  large 
reserve  corps,  which  has  not  yet  appeared 
on  the  field  ;  there  are  thousands,  ten  thou¬ 
sands  of  priests,  who  have  not  yet  been 
called  to  take  the  oath  ;  there  is  the  whole 
of  the  laity,  which  up  to  the  present  has  been 
slumbering,  but  is  now  awTakening  fast,  and 
fully  sympathizes  with  the  movement  against 
the  tyrannical  power  of  the  Vatican.  What 
will  happen  to-morrow?  Who  knows  if  to¬ 
morrow  we  shall  not  witness  what  could  not 
happen  to-day — a  resistance  of  the  mass? 

Meanwhile,  a  strange  fact  is  happening. 
Whilst  the  “ Motu  proprio','>  seems  to 


11 


triumph  in  a  way,  in  another  way  it  proves 
to  be  an  altogether  dead  failure.  You  all 
know  what  has  happened  in  Germany  and 
elsewhere  ;  you  know  how  the  Pope  has  had 
to  come  to  a  kind  of  compromise  with  the 
enemy ;  but  very  likely  you  do  not  know 
what  has  happened  and  is  happening  in  Italy. 
We  have  in  Italy  a  whole  class  of  priests  who 
are  at  the  same  time  professors  in  different 
schools.  A  great  many  of  these  professors 
have  not  yet  been  ordered  to  take  the  oath. 
Why?  Because  the  Curia  knows  that  the 
larger  number  of  them  would  rebel  against 
the  order  and  leave  the  Church.  They  are  all 
men  of  independent  means,  with  university 
degrees,  having  the  doors  of  all  Government 
schools  open  to  them,  and  the  loss  of  the 
meagre  income  derived  from  saying  mass 
would  be  to  them  an  insignificant  loss.  Do 
you  care  to  know  what  is  the  spirit  that  ani¬ 
mates  these  noble  souls,  these  cultured  men, 
who  have  given  to  the  Church  the  best  years 
of  their  lives  but  are  not  ready  to  sacrifice 
for  her  their  liberty,  their  dignity,  their  con¬ 
science?  Listen  to  these  few  lines  one  of 
them  wrote  me  on  the  morrow  of  the  issuing 
of  the  “  Motu  proprio  :  “My  dear  friend, 
before  closing  my  letter,  let  me  unbosom 
myself  and  tell  you  one  thing  more.  What 
happens  in  my  Church  is  more  than  I  am 
able  to  bear.  I  feel  that  I  have  had  quite 
enough  of  this  Catholic  Church  of  ours. 
Every  day  she  becomes  more  and  more  a 
barefaced  negation  of  Christandof  His  Word. 
I  feel  that  to  continue  to  wear  the  garb  I  am 
now  wearing  and  to  remain  in  the  society  I 
belong  to  is  not  only  a  lie,  but  a  sort  of  denial 
of  what  the  Gospel  has  of  most  noble  and 
holy.  And  since  we  have  to  give  an  account 
of  ourselves  to  God,  I  believe  it  to  be  my 
right  and  my  duty  to  throw  away  this  garb 


12 


and  to  escape  from  this  Roman  prison.  As 
soon  as  the  oath  will  be  required  of  me,  I 
and  my  friends,  whom  you  know,  shall  leave 
the  Church.  You  know  what  I  mean  ;  when 
I  say  we  shall  leave  the  Church ,  I  am  only 
using  the  current  phrase ;  the  real  fact  is 
that  we  are  forced  to  leave  the  Church  of  the 
Vatican  in  order  to  remain  in  and  to  be 
faithful  to  the  Church  of  Christ.  Romolo 
Murri  is  perfectly  right  when  he  says  in  his 
‘Commento’:  ‘To  leave  the  Church  of 
Rome  is,  for  us  priests,  the  only  way  to  save 
the  ideal  condition  of  our  true  priesthood.’  ” 

AUDACIOUS  WITH  THE}  WEAK,  COWARDLY 
WITH  THE  STRONG. 

The  Curia,  at  a  certain  moment,  thought 
it  wise  to  show  its  authority  and  to  give  an 
example  which,  through  the  impression  it 
was  sure  to  make,  was  expected  to  prepare 
the  way  to  wider  results.  There  lives  at 
Genoa  a  friar,  a  Barnabite,  Father  Giovanni 
Semeria.  He  is  one  of  the  cleverest  men, 
one  of  the  best  writers,  and  one  of  the  most 
eloquent  preachers  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  possesses  in  Italy.  This  man  is  a 
Modernist ;  a  fine  type  of  a  Modernist.  In 
his  books,  which  treat  generally  of  ecclesias¬ 
tical  subjects  from  a  historical  point  of  view, 
you  find  the  echo  of  our  best  Protestant 
literature.  This  man,  with  his  strong  liking 
for  Biblical  criticism,  might  have  been 
launched,  as  many  others,  into  the  sea  of 
rationalism  ;  what  has  saved  him  has  been  his 
love  for  Christ,  his  good  heart,  his  charity 
toward  all  sufferers  who  best  represent  on 
earth  the  suffering  Christ.  For  this  reason 
especially,  Semeria  is  the  most  popular  friar 
in  Genoa  ;  he  has  practically  the  heart  of 
Genoa  in  his  hand,  and  is  not  a  man  easily 
to  be  touched  by  the  Curia,  without  running 


13 


the  risk  of  losing  not  the  man  only,  but  the 
larger  part  of  the  city.  This  is  the  reason 
why  the  Curia  has  limited  the  power  of  the 
man  by  limiting  his  preaching,  but  has 
never  dared  to  attack  him  in  a  decisive  way. 
A  short  time  ago,  though,  the  Curia,  as  I 
have  said,  thought  of  giving  a  striking  ex¬ 
ample  of  its  power  to  the  rest  of  the  clergy, 
and  chose  as  its  butt  Father  Semeria. 
Orders  were  sent  to  the  general  of  the  Bar- 
nabites  to  exact  from  him  the  anti-modern¬ 
istic  oath.  Father  Semeria  answered  that 
he  could  not  take  an  oath  that  went  against 
his  conscience.  The  general  did  his  best  to 
persuade  him  to  obey,  and  when  he  saw  that 
it  was  useless,  gave  him  twenty-four  hours 
to  think  over  the  matter.  When  the  given 
time  had  elapsed,  Father  Semeria  went  back 
to  the  general,  saying  :  “To  that  formula, 
as  it  has  come  from  Rome,  I  cannot  put  my 
signature  ;  but  here  is  a  formula  I  have  pre¬ 
pared,  which  I  am  ready  to  sign ;  it  fully 
expresses  my  disapproval  of  all  the  Modern¬ 
istic  theories  I  am  persuaded  are  erroneous, 
and  my  positive  Christian  belief.  Are  you 
willing  to  accept  this  formula  of  mine  in¬ 
stead  of  the  other  one?  ” 

The  general  answered  that  he  would  send 
it  to  Rome  and  wait  for  orders. 

The  answer  came,  and  was  clear  enough  : 
“  Fither  sign  our  formula  as  given,  or  go.” 

Father  Semeria  began  to  make  all  his 
preparations  to  start  for  Germany ;  ordered 
a  suit  of  civilian  clothes,  packed  his  boxes, 
and  decided  to  stop  for  a  while  with  friends 
at  Munich.  Whilst  doing  all  this,  in  order 
to  perfectly  quiet  his  conscience  and  to  be 
able  afterwards  to  say  that  he  had  really 
tried  every  possible  means  before  leaving 
the  Church,  the  idea  struck  him  that  he 
might  write  directly  to  the  Pope  himself. 


14 


He  did  so ;  he  opened  his  heart,  his  con¬ 
science,  his  soul  to  him  ;  he  sent  him  his 
own  formula,  and  asked  him  if  he  really  in¬ 
sisted  on  forcing  him  to  make  such  violence 
to  his  own  conscience  by  taking  the  oath 
of  the  “ Motn propriol  ” 

Father  Semeria  never  expected  to  get  an 
answer.  Fie  had  made  up  his  mind  to  wait 
for  the  necessary  time  for  a  letter  to  reach 
him  from  Rome,  and  then  leave.  But  a 
letter  came — a  letter  in  the  Pope’s  own 
handwriting.  In  it  the  Pope  allowed  him 
to  sign  the  formula  he  liked  best,  and  be¬ 
sides  gave  him  his  apostolic  benediction. 
Father  Semeria  unpacked  his  boxes,  put 
away  his  civilian  clothes  for  another  occa¬ 
sion,  and  resumed  his  work. 

The  psychology  of  modern  papacy  may 
be  summed  up  in  a  few  words :  Audacious 
with  the  weak,  cowardly  with  the  strong. 
But  in  so  behaving,  the  Vatican  undermines 
itself  in  public  estimation.  Everybody  sees 
and  feels  that  the  “  Motu  proprio which 
was  intended  to  be  the  final  blow  to  Mod¬ 
ernism,  has  been  instead  a  means  of  show¬ 
ing  the  miserable  condition  into  which  the 
Curia  has  fallen.  Modern  papacy  is  like 
an  old  aristocrat,  clad  in  his  gorgeous 
mediaeval  costume,  trying  to  order  about 
everybody  whilst  the  most  do  not  pay  any 
attention  to  him,  and  the  few  make  pretense 
of  obeying,  but  at  the  same  time  laugh  at 
him  in  their  sleeve. 

A  few  days  ago  I  was  speaking  of  all 
these  things  to  a  well-known  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic  priest,  a  leading  man,  and  well  known 
for  his  advanced  ideas  in  fact  of  Modern¬ 
ism.  I  was  deploring  the  last  papal  utter¬ 
ances,  when  he  said  to  me  :  “No,  my  dear 
friend,  this  is  for  us  all  a  providential  Pope  ; 
by  such  utterances  as  these  last  ones,  he 


15 


will  embitter  more  and  more  the  clergy, 
will  daily  reduce  the  number  of  those  who 
are  still  faithful  to  him,  will  get  dis¬ 
credited  among  the  laity,  and  will  thus 
bring  the  Church  to  the  crisis  which  we  are 
all  longing  for.  Ret  us  pray  to  God  that 
he  may  have  a  long  pontificate  !  ’  ’ 

THE  NON-PATRIOTISM  OE  THE  VATICAN. 

Italy  is  rejoicing.  All  over  the  country 
the  enthusiasm  for  the  commemoration  of 
the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the  proclamation 
of  the  United  Kingdom  is  great.  Turin, 
Florence,  the  two  previous  capitals,  and 
Rome,  with  their  splendid  exhibitions,  are 
the  focus  of  all  these  national  rejoicings. 
In  this  general  and  wonderful  concert  to 
which  nature  adds  its  mysterious  song  and 
its  heavenly  smile,  only  one  note  of  discord 
is  heard ;  and  that  note  comes  from  the 
Vatican.  The  Vatican  papers  are  full  of 
lamentations  ;  word  has  come  from  the  Curia 
to  say  that  for  the  Church  and  for  all  true 
Roman  Catholic  believers  this  must  be  a  year 
of  mourning  and  retirement.  Meanwhile, 
especially  in  country  parts  and  in  the 
remotest  corners  of  Italy,  a  legion  of  priests, 
either  ignorant  or  hoping  to  get  some 
material  advantage  from  the  Curia,  do  their 
best  to  persuade  the  poor  folk  entrusted  to 
their  care  that  in  this  year  the  atheists,  who 
stole  Rome  from  the  Pope,  are  trying  their 
best  to  complete  their  Satanic  work  by  ruining 
the  Church. 

You  have  no  idea  of  how  far  the  hatred  of 
the  Curia  for  United  Italy  may  go.  When 
the  Vatican  speaks  of  the  King,  the  mildest 
expression  it  uses  is  that  of  2  Thess.  ii.  7  : 
He  who  now  letteth.  .  .  .  For  twenty-four 
years  running,  beginning  with  1870  (the 
year  of  the  “spoliation,”  as  they  call  it), 


16 


the  Unitd  Cattolica ,  one  of  the  most  rabid 
papers  of  the  Curia,  was  issued  with  a  border 
of  black  round  it,  as  a  protest  against  the 
annexation  of  Rome  to  the  Kingdom  ;  and 
the  ugly  farce  was  only  put  a  stop  to  when  at 
last  the  Italian  authorities  had  had  quite 
enough  of  it.  Here  is  another  incident,  a 
ridiculous  one,  you  may  think,  but  still  some¬ 
thing  like  another  straw  that  shows  the 
direction  of  the  current.  A  few  years  ago 
the  “  Academia  Pontificia  ”  offered  a  prize 
to  the  man  who  wrote  the  best  essay  on  an 
archseological  subject.  The  time  given  for 
the  sending  of  the  essay  had  elapsed,  and 
the  appointed  commission  read  the  several 
manuscripts.  One  of  them  was  judged  to 
be  far  the  best  of  them  all,  and  to  it  was 
awarded  the  prize.  All  the  manuscripts, 
naturally,  were  not  signed  with  the  name 
of  the  writer,  but  had  a  motto,  to  which 
corresponded  a  closed  envelope  containing 
the  full  name  of  the  author.  The  opened 
envelope,  corresponding  to  the  winning 
motto,  revealed  the  name  of  a  Protestant, 
not  only,  but  of  the  son  of  a  Baptist  min¬ 
ister,  and  a  young  minister  himself.  The 
revelation  did  not  please  the  Pope  at  all ; 
but  the  prize  had  been  awarded,  the  essay 
was  really  a  superior  work,  and  the  money 
{$200)  had  to  be  given.  My  friend  received 
in  fact  a  nice  velvet  box,  containing  fifty 
French  pieces  of  gold  of  20  francs  each. 
He  was  struck  by  the  fact  that  not  one  of 
the  gold  pieces  was  of  Italian  coin  ;  and 
having  made  some  inquiries  about  it,  was 
told  that  all  payments  at  the  Vatican  are 
made  in  foreign  money.  Italian  coin,  there, 
is  not  recognized  !  The  thing  in  itself 
sounds  [silly,  but  looked  upon  as  a  symp¬ 
tom  it  is  sadly  important ;  it  shows  that 
the  lust  for  worldly  power  has  suffocated 


17 


in  the  bosom  of  the  Curia  all  sacred  love 
for  its  mother  country  as  well  as  for  the 
Kingdom  of  God.  The  effect  of  all  this 
on  the  nation  is  disastrous  for  the  Vatican. 
All  these  facts  alienate  more  and  more  from 
it  the  heart  of  the  patriots,  who  well  know 
what  the  unity  of  Italy  has  cost  their  fathers, 
and  cannot  forget  that  through  all  the  cen¬ 
turies  the  Popes  have  too  often  filled  Italy 
with  foreign  armies  in  order  to  uphold  their 
egoistic  pretensions. 

“a  cause  dead  and  buried.” 

A  few  days  ago  I  was  in  Turin,  and  could 
not  help  going  to  visit  the  historic  House, 
where,  for  the  first  time,  on  March  25,  1861, 
the  unity  of  Italy,  with  Rome  as  capital, 
was  unanimously  proclaimed,  and  where 
Camillo  Cavour  delivered  that  wonderful 
speech  which  will  remain  in  the  heart  of 
Italy  as  a  sacred  remembrance  of  a  true  pro¬ 
phetic  utterance.  Naturally,  in  1861,  Rome 
as  capital  could  only  be  proclaimed  in  theory. 
The  Vatican  held  its  Roman  States  tight, 
and  France  was  supporting  the  rights  of  the 
Pope  with  her  armies.  But  Cavour  was 
inspired ;  he  saw  what  the  future  ought  to 
be  and  finally  would  be  :  A  united  Italy 
with  Rome  as  its  capital,  and  with  the  Pope 
in  it  in  a  position  to  be  able  to  exercise  his 
spiritual  power  with  perfect  freedom.  And 
whilst  I  was  reading  on  the  different  seats 
of  the  House  the  names  of  the  great  patriots 
who  had  occupied  them  on  the  memorable 
day,  I  seemed  to  hear  the  echo  of  the  strik¬ 
ing  words  of  Cavour:  “Gentlemen,  I  can¬ 
not  imagine  a  greater  misfortune  for  a  cul¬ 
tured  people  than  that  which  consists  in  the 
accumulation  in  one  hand,  in  the  hand  of  its 
ruler,  of  the  civil  and  the  religious  power. 
The  history  of  all  centuries  and  of  all  coun- 


18 


tries  shows  that  wherever  that  accumulation 
or  that  confusion  has  taken  place,  almost 
immediately  civilization  has  stopped  pro¬ 
gressing,  has  gone  backwards,  and  the  most 
horrid  despotism  has  been  established.  All 
this  has  happened  either  when  a  sacerdotal 
caste  usurped  the  temporal  powrer,  or  when 
a  Caliph  or  a  Sultan  seized  the  spiritual 
power.”  Nine  years  after  this  never  to  be 
forgotten  sitting  of  the  House  at  Turin, 
Rome  was  taken  and  proclaimed  Capital  de 
facto ;  and  now,  after  more  than  forty  years, 
during  which  the  King  and  the  Pope  have 
dwelt  together  in  the  same  city,  facts  have 
eloquently  proved  that  the  Pope  can  exercise 
his  spiritual  ministry  with  perfect  freedom, 
and  that  he  has  all  his  spiritual  rights  re¬ 
spected  by  the  State,  much  more  than  he 
shows  himself  inclined  to  respect  the  rights 
of  the  State.  The  true  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  which  is  no  longer  represented  by 
the  Vatican,  but  by  the  large  believing  mass 
of  Modernists  who  wait  and  pray  in  the  tents 
of  the  clergy  and  in  the  tents  of  the  laity, 
wisely  expresses  herself  as  one  reads,  for 
instance,  in  an  impressive  series  of  letters 
called  Lettere  Ghibelline :  ‘‘There  is  no 
doubt ;  it  was  a  great  blessing  that  God  con¬ 
ferred  on  His  Church  when,  through  the 
force  of  events,  He  liberated  her  from  that 
earthly  power  which  subjected  the  great 
lordship  of  the  Church  to  the  small  interests 
of  a  Kingdom.  The  ul tramontanes  of  Italy 
fight  for  a  cause  which  is  dead  and  buried.” 


[2392a] 


'■  ,  '■  .  -  C  ,  1  "  .'‘N'T,.  •.,,u  ■ 

.  .  .  1  ; 


■ 


V 

> 


